Although the South African Constitution addresses gender equality, women in the education sector still do not experience equal rights in practice. The predominance of males in educational leadership posts continues to define the South African culture (Cotter, 2004). Historically, South African women dominated the teaching profession (Department of Education, 2006), yet there remains a dearth of women in leadership positions. South Africa continues to promulgate the government’s transformation agenda with little evidence as to its effectiveness regarding the enhancement of gender equality or an open plan of action to meet democratic and transformational imperatives (Naidoo, 2004). Despite the post-apartheid government’s ‘gender equality’ initiatives such as appointing more women in senior management and leadership positions (Department of Education, 2006; Moorosi, 2008), activists remain ambivalent regarding their impact. South African researchers (Mahlase, 1997) found that many female principals face triple oppression, namely race, class and gender.

The purpose of this paper is to focus on a more contemporary understanding of how female principals manage their schools, that is, negotiating challenges and obstacles that confront them in their daily encounters. Being mindful of the socio-political context within which female principals’ work and understanding these conditions is essential to comprehending their experiences. While an exploratory study such as this may seem less than relevant to the field of women leadership since critics might claim that this approach is mere repetition and confirmation of prior studies, the originality of this paper lies in its application to all women leaders globally and its reflection of the participants’ lived experiences. Leadership in South Africa differs from Western leadership models (Naidoo, 2004) by virtue of a complex and layered history. Postcolonial feminists are critical of Western forms of feminism and argue that cultures impacted by colonialism are different and should be treated as such. Any feminist approach must be mindful of women’s unique contexts (Mestry & Schmidt, 2012). Female principals in developing or first world countries (Europe) who are struggling with their leadership roles will benefit from the findings of this study. Therefore, this study contributes to a valuable but small body of literature related to an international or global context. In a country attempting to chart transformational territory in the field of leadership and learning, this study becomes relevant and meaningful to female principals in other countries around the globe.

This paper takes into consideration the intersections of gender, class and race that confine and constrain the experiences of principals. We employed the theory of intersectionality to investigate the structural and individual contexts within which these women work. Intersectionality theory captures aspects of history that contribute to the damaging and entrenched patriarchy in their work. The idea of using intersectionality as an analytical lens in this study enables researchers to examine the situated woman in the center of domination. While located in these spaces, the interpersonal domain influences women’s daily interactions with others in their personal and work relationships. Transformation occurs when women engage in critical reflection of their context. Collins stresses that it is a woman’s responsibility to recognize her own victimisation — to “see…how her own thoughts and actions uphold someone else’s subordination” (2000: 287). Structure and disciplinary domains are typically resistant to change while the domains of interpersonal relationships located in the interstices of structure can be negotiated. It is in these spaces where women can find cracks and fissures with which to recast and resist hegemony and thus consider individual agency. Within our theory of intersectionality, we seek to understand the women’s ability to negotiate the spaces and fissures within structures as recommended by Collins (2000). 

Charmin K 2003. Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods In NK Denzin & YS Lincoln (eds.), Strategies for qualitative inquiry. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Collins PH 2000. Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. New York: Routledge. Cotter AM 2004. Gender injustice: An international comparative analysis of equality in employment. Burlington, VA: Ashgate. Creswell JW 2003. Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches and mixed methods approaches. London: Sage. Department of Education 2006. Statistical overview survey. Ordinary and special education in Gauteng. Johannesburg: Gauteng Department of Education. Lincoln YS & Guba EG 1995. Naturalistic inquiry. London: Sage Mahlase S 1997. The careers of women teachers under Apartheid. Harare: SAPES Books. Mestry R & Schmidt M 2012. A feminist postcolonial examination of female principals’ experiences in South African secondary schools. Gender and Education, 24 (5): 535-551. Moorosi P 2008. Creating linkages between private and public: Challenges facing women principals in South Africa. South African Journal of Education, 27(3): 507–521. Naidoo J 2004. Educational decentralization and school governance: from policy to practice. M Ed. Dissertation. Harvard: Harvard Graduate School of Education. Shenton AK 2004. Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22: 63-7.